Symbolated texts as an assistive technology: Exploring the impact on reading comprehension.
Picture symbols above text lower comprehension and slow reading for adults with IDD—use plain text or text-to-speech instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Benson-Goldberg (2025) asked a simple question: do little picture symbols above words help adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities read better?
The team gave the same short stories to two groups. One group saw plain text. The other saw the same words plus symbol pictures above key nouns and verbs.
Everyone then answered questions about what they read. The researchers timed how long each person took and scored the answers.
What they found
The symbols hurt. People who got the symbol text scored lower on comprehension and took longer to finish.
Plain text won on both speed and understanding. The pictures that were meant to help actually got in the way.
How this fits with other research
Alqahtani (2020) found the opposite. Young adults with ID read just as well with iPad text-to-speech as with repeated reading, and the iPad cut time by two-thirds. One tech aid helped, the other harmed.
Hurlbut et al. (1982) seems to clash too. Teens with severe delays learned Bliss symbols faster when the symbols looked like the thing they meant. Pictures helped communication there, but Sofia shows they hurt reading. The key difference is purpose: talking versus reading.
Schneider et al. (2006) and Garwood et al. (2021) tried other cheap text tweaks. Coloured overlays and extra-wide letter spacing helped kids with autism or dyslexia read faster. Again, small visual changes can help, but only when they don’t crowd the words.
Why it matters
If you support adults with IDD, skip the symbolated books. Use plain text, text-to-speech, or spacing tweaks instead. Save money and time while boosting comprehension.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap any symbol-loaded stories for plain text or turn on the iPad’s speak-selection tool and measure reading time.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: It is widely assumed that pairing graphic symbols with text supports individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in accessing written content. As a result, these symbolated texts are often used as an assistive technology to increase text accessibility. Unfortunately, there is little empirical evidence that symbolated texts improve reading comprehension. Research with beginning and struggling readers suggests that pairing text with any type of image makes understanding text more difficult and impedes reading growth by distracting individuals' visual attention away from the text on the page. Despite this, there continues to be widespread use of symbolated texts. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of symbolated text on the reading comprehension of individuals with IDD. METHOD AND PROCEDURES: Objective measures of reading comprehension and reading-level matched texts with and without graphic symbols were used to: (a) compare comprehension scores across text-type; (b) investigate the impact of symbols on reading rate; and (c) look for relationships between reading rate and reading comprehension scores. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Results suggest that reading comprehension scores are significantly lower for symbolated texts than traditional texts. Additionally, pairing graphic symbols with text resulted in significantly slower reading times. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The findings suggest that symbolated texts may not make texts more accessible for individuals with IDD. Rather, they may actually make content less accessible. Anyone producing texts for this population should be cautious about pairing graphic symbols with text.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2025 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2025.104998